Speed Cameras As a Tool to Reduce Road Fatalities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Speed Cameras as a Tool to Reduce Road Fatalities Prepared by Misty A. Boos, May 2009 VDOT Research Library 530 Edgemont Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Ph: (434) 293-1959 Fax: (434) 293-1990 [email protected] KEY SEARCH TERMS: Speed Cameras Automated Enforcement Speed Control Traffic Accidents Cameras Research Synthesis Bibliography No. 23 Research Synthesis Bibliographies (RSBs) are distillations of relevant transportation research on current topics of interest to researchers, engineers, and policy/decision makers. Sources cited are available for loan (or available through Interlibrary Loan) to VDOT employees through the VDOT Research Library. Learning Lessons from Domestic and International Speed Camera Programs Most researchers and public safety officials agree that speeding causes an increase in crashes. They generally agree that speed limit enforcement measures, including speed cameras, help catch and penalize drivers who break the speed limit. However, some questions remain unanswered. Does the use of speed cameras actually lead to a reduction in the number of speeders and crashes, or reduce crash severity overall? Are there any unintended consequences that result from using visible speed enforcement camera systems? Some researchers have claimed that fixed, visible speed cameras may lead to dangerous traffic situations, as drivers approaching an enforcement zone suddenly decelerate, only to accelerate again after having passed it—something referred to as “the kangaroo effect. While the kangaroo effect has been observed by many, to date there is no scientific evidence to prove that it results in an increase in accidents. In addition, some research has noted that drivers aware of fixed speed cameras may resort to using alternative routes to avoid the cameras, possibly leading to an increase in crashes on other roadways. Regression to the Mean It is common practice to place speed cameras in locations where there have been recent high numbers of crashes. When collecting crash data in these areas, crash rate trends may appear to decrease due to “Regression To the Mean” (RTM) instead of being the result of the effectiveness of the cameras. The idea behind this phenomenon is that when cameras are placed at sites where a high number of accidents had been observed, a lower number of accidents after the placement might be expected in subsequent years simply by random chance “as the roadway returns to its normal mean crash rate after the peak.” (Thomas et al, 2008) RTM is a well known phenomenon by which extreme examples from any set of data are likely to be followed by examples which are less extreme. RTM is recognized as a concept that can be misused easily, but also one that is critical to research and experimental design. Despite the concerns over cameras and RTM, “injury crash reductions in the range of 20% to 25% appear to be a reasonable estimate of site-specific safety benefit from conspicuous, fixed-camera, automated speed enforcement programs”. (Thomas et al., 2008) International Speed Camera Use Speed cameras are used extensively outside of the United States. From their international review of speed camera programs, authors Pilkington and Kinra concluded that “although the evidence is weak, the research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in improving road safety”. (Thomas et al., 2008) Public Acceptance While successful speed camera programs are in place in many countries today, the use of enforcement cameras is certainly contentious. Many international programs were initially met with public resistance. This RSB includes some international sources about public concerns related to speed camera programs. In the U.S., the constitutionality of automated speed enforcement has been repeatedly upheld, although speed camera programs have not become an established part of a nationwide, transportation safety program. There are a number of public concerns transportation professionals may want to contemplate when considering or implementing a speed camera program, including: general ticketing procedures, how ticket revenues will be distributed, privacy issues, and whether or not automated enforcement does result in reduced crash rates. Some studies have noted that public resistance to such programs can occur if speed cameras are perceived as revenue generators rather than methods for improving safety. (Hedlund, 2007) For a list of communities in the US with speed camera programs in place please see this website: http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/auto_enforce_list.html “The ultimate success of automated enforcement will not rely on the technology so much as how the technology is applied and how transportation professionals interact with state and local legislators, local judiciary, and the public when implementing automated enforcement”. (Turner 1998) —Misty A. Boos Note: This RSB does not include research regarding red-light cameras or cameras used specifically at intersections. DATABASES SEARCHED FOR THIS RSB OCLC WorldCat TRANSPORT 1988-present TRIS Online TRISworld NTIS Google Coop: State DOT Search Engine VDOT OneSearch Research In Progress (RiP) Google Scholar JSTOR LexisNexis Academic Universe GETTING RESOURCES LISTED HERE Full text copies of most resources listed in this document are available in the VDOT Research Library’s collections, or through interlibrary loan, through the Library. In many cases, the Library owns both virtual and hard copies of documents, as well as formats such as CD-ROM. Library staff is available Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00. Please contact us if you have a reference question, a question about our lending policies, or need any other kind of help. Reference Questions: Library Circulation and InterLibrary Loans: Ken Winter, Director Library/Info. Services Misty Boos, Library Assistant [email protected] [email protected] 434-962-89789 434-293-1959 CONTENTS I. DOMESTIC PROGRAMS AND STUDIES P. 1 II. INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS AND STUDIES P. 11 III. RESEARCH IN PROGRESS P. 26 DOMESTIC PROGRAMS AND STUDIES The following citations are sorted by date with the most recent articles and reports listed first. Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices, Fourth Edition, 2009 ABSTRACT: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has released a report that explores major highway safety strategies and countermeasures that are relevant to State Highway Safety Offices; summarizes their use, effectiveness, costs, and implementation time; and provides references to safety research summaries and individual studies. DATABASE: TRIS Online ACCESS: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associ ated%20Files/811081.pdf Communities Using Speed Cameras CITATION: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ABSTRACT: This Web site by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety provides a comprehensive listing of domestic speed camera programs as of March 2009. ACCESS: http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/auto_enforce_list.html Cameras Help Lower Speeds on Arizona Freeway CITATION: Status Report, 2008. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Vol. 43, No. 1. ABSTRACT: This article reports that a campaign to limit speeding in Scottsdale, Arizona using a speed-camera enforcement program was successful. Before the pilot program, 15 percent of drivers were traveling more than 75 mph on sections posted at 65 mph. Once the signs and cameras were in place, the percentage of violators fell to one to two percent. Surveys indicated, in addition, that local drivers were pleased with the speed cameras. The article describes the nine-month pilot program and its location. By comparing speeds on similar portions of nearby freeways without cameras, researchers found that there was as much as a 95 percent decrease in the odds that drivers would travel faster than 75 mph. The article includes a short section on a similar trial in Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C. DATABASE: TRIS Online ACCESS: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4301.pdf Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines CITATION: 2008. United States. Federal Highway Administration; United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. ABSTRACT: The ASE guidelines are intended to serve program managers, administrators, 1 law enforcement, traffic engineers, program evaluators, and other individuals responsible for the strategic vision and daily operations of the program. The guidelines are written from a U.S. perspective and emphasize U.S. contexts and best practices. However, they are also drawn from the experiences of exemplary programs internationally. Though international differences in law, history, and culture might influence best practices for ASE, the majority of these guidelines are relevant to ASE programs worldwide. The guidelines are intended to be accessible and inclusive, with an emphasis on presenting options and describing the advantages, particularly in increased traffic flow and reduced congestion, and disadvantages of each, so that an ASE program can be tailored to the needs of a particular jurisdiction. The technological state of the practice in ASE is developing rapidly. Some specific technologies are described, but rather than focus on the capabilities of current technologies, the emphasis is on identifying the functional requirements that technologies must meet so that the guidelines remain relevant as technologies evolve. DATABASE: TRIS Online ACCESS: